The Ambitious Plan To Break California Into 6 States – A Model For The Future?

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Michael Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

The more I’ve thought about potential solutions to the gigantic mess we have found ourselves in as a species, the more I have come to believe we need to break apart into a vast multitude of city-states. The revolutionary concept of America in the first place was this idea of “self-governance,” something we do not posses an iota of in this day and age. As was noted recently in an academic paper published by Princeton and Northwestern, these United States have mutated into nothing short of an oligarchy. In fact, the study demonstrated that the will of the people has essentially zero impact on legislation whatsoever.

In centuries prior, the idea of “representative-democracy” in which people elect people to represent their interests in a far off capital seemed like a reasonable solution to a very real problem. Information took a very long time to get from one place to another, so you had to trust someone else to essentially negotiate for you on issues of national significance. Moreover, in such a disconnected world, centralization was not only more efficient, it seemed like the only way. As such, things became highly centralized, so much so that things have now morphed into a global oligarchy that wields almost total power. Meanwhile, the billions of plebs have no say whatsoever in the affairs that govern their lives; including whether they will be financially secure, posses any civil liberties at all or end up in jail for a wide litany of non-violent “crimes.”

With the incredible tools we now possess, thanks primarily to the Internet, we no longer need centralization of government. Nor do we really need representatives to vote for us on the issues that most greatly affect out lives. As any American understands, the diversity of cultural, economic, and political sentiments vary greatly throughout the land. It’s not just the obvious ones, such as the differences between “northerners” and “southerners,” but wide discrepancies exists within states themselves. For example, Austin is nothing like much of the rest of Texas, and the Denver/Boulder area where I live is very distinct from much of the rest of Colorado. The examples are simply too many to list, but I am of the belief that people are capable of, and should be free to, decide the most important things that affect their lives at a local level (with the exception of obvious things such as violence or aggression toward one another).

The founding fathers’ original idea of many “United States” allowed for different ideals to be expressed in a wide variety of ways, and is in my opinion one of the most advantageous attributes of our nation. But why stop there? Why not allow different areas and municipalities break off even further into far more autonomous type structures than we have today?

Of course many people will answer, what about slavery? The truth of the matter is that this abomination in the United States seemingly had to be resolved through a bloody conflict given the economic interests in the south at the time. The founders decided one war  was enough, and let this horrible practice be tackled almost a hundred years later through violent conflict. I hope that we have advanced enough as a species that we can come to a global consensus that certain things are illegal everywhere. Slavery, murder, rape, etc. Other than these (and other) obvious evils we can all agree on, decentralized legislation seems to make sense to me in this day and age. While I strongly disagree with “global government” a global consensus on certain things we can all agree upon as reprehensible anywhere on earth seems completely reasonable.

With that in mind, the man who recently purchased the entire 30,000 Silk Road Bitcoins from the feds has proposed to break California into six separate parts. The measure has already collected far more than the 800,000 signatures” needed to to get it on the state ballot.

From Wired:

Like Hollywood or Manhattan, Silicon Valley occupies a singular place on the American cultural and economic landscape. Unlike those other locales, however, the Valley’s more idiosyncratic political leanings have led to murmurings of secession more typical of rural hinterlands that already feel cut off through sheer physical isolation. That chatter has culminated in a measure that appears headed for the statewide ballot to split California into six separate states, of which Silicon Valley would be one.


While ostensibly a plan to make the entire state of 38 million people more governable, the six-state initiative is being led and funded by a member of the Silicon Valley elite, many of whom would no doubt welcome the increased political clout that would likely come from carving out their own statehood. In the hands of most, the six-state initiative would look like a pure stunt. But with Silicon Valley behind it, this effort’s chances at the ballot box can’t be dismissed out of hand. Unlike most other would-be revolutionaries, Silicon Valley has a long record of taking ideas that sound outlandish at the time—affordable computers in every home, private rocket ships—and managing to make them real. It also has a seemingly endless stream of money that, combined with heavy doses of ingenuity and shamelessness, give its goofball ideas the fuel they need to take off.


Leading the six-state push is Tim Draper, a wealthy third-generation venture capitalist known for his theatrics. He hosts the superhero-themed Draper University of Heroes, a kind of motivational cram session for would-be startup entrepreneurs, and once wore a Captain America costume himself on a magazine cover. Last month, he bought nearly 30,000 bitcoins auctioned off by the U.S. Marshals Service after authorities had seized them from online black market Silk Road. In short, he’s exactly the kind of guy with the time, money, and temperament to push a wacky-sounding ballot measure.


“Our gift to California is this—it’s one of opportunity and choice,” Draper said at a press conference yesterday where he announced the campaign had collected far more than 800,000 signatures needed to get the measure on the ballot. “We’re saying, make one failing government into six great states.”


The campaign in favor of the measure argue that six states will mean six state governments more responsive to local concerns, rather than the unwieldy process of orchestrating the state’s 158,000 square miles entirely from Sacramento.


With the six-state proposal, the Californian Ideology appears to be seeking out its final, fullest, most ironic realization by underwriting Silicon Valley’s emancipation from California itself.


And why wouldn’t Silicon Valley seek to be free? Through the lens of its own sensibility, at least, California looks like the worst kind of incumbent, an ancient and inefficient institution mired in old ways of doing business, a monopolist that holds onto power through manipulation, not innovation. To six-state supporters, holding onto the idea of a single California represents, at best, an irrational sentimentality, a commitment to the past grounded in lazy logic and unexamined assumptions. Breaking up California is exactly the kind of “disruption” that titillates the venture capitalist imagination. In the process, the new state of Silicon Valley—which would stretch from San Francisco to Monterey–would also, conveniently, separate its great and greatly concentrated wealth from the poorer parts of the state.


The Valley’s “hacker way” has so far proven a clumsy fit for the strategic complexity of the political process, which relies more on realism than idealism. Before California would officially break up, per the U.S. Constitution, the existing state legislature would still have to sign off, which it’s unlikely to do for a host of reasons, not least being the tax revenue lost to Silicon Valley seceding. Congress would also have to approve what would amount to the dilution of its own power by granting California twelve senators instead of the current two.

At this point, I’d like to make it clear I don’t think this will become a reality in the near-term. In fact, it is likely that decentralization will first occur in the economic and technological areas of human society way before it happens on the political level. The reasons for this should be obvious.  

We are already seeing decentralization take over in all sorts of economic areas. Information flow in general and alternative media specifically, currency (Bitcoin), transportation (Uber, Lyft), and manufacturing (3D-printing). When the political process fully implodes in the West, we’ll look to decentralized successes in other areas and apply them to politics.

I believe the current overly centralized paradigm parasitically engulfing the planet will experience a series of spectacular collapses in the years ahead that will make 2008 look like practice. As the centralized beast episodically implodes upon itself, we will have a historic chance to remake our world in a new way that will better serve humanity. That new paradigm will consist of freedom through decentralization, and I can’t wait to see it.

In fact, it’s already started.

For recent articles on our generation’s most significant battle; Centralization vs. Decentralization, check out the following articles:

Ex-CIA Officer Claims that Open Source Revolution is About to Overthrow Global Oligarchy

Networks vs. Hierarchies: Which Will Win? Niall Furguson Weighs In

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Manthong's picture

Looks OK as long as all the sewer pipes drain into Sacramento.

It is fitting and just.

wee-weed up's picture

6 states? 8 states? 20 states?

Give it up... it will all be Mexi-fornia eventually!

CrazyCooter's picture

Won't ever come to pass ... elites have roots in the current system and will generally fight any kind of change like this as it eats away at their entrenched interests. It is hard work (and expensive) buying off the new batch of politicos. Better off with the ones already paid for ... like a paid for car, ya' know?



ZerOhead's picture

That's like 10 extra senate seats.

To help attract new muslim immigrants they could call them Califates...

Manthong's picture

“OK as long as all the sewer pipes drain into Sacramento”

What? Like the crap hasn’t been flowing OUT from Sacramento for the last 40 years?

economics9698's picture

The USA will break up when the fiat dies and the SS checks are not worth a box of depends.

wee-weed up's picture



The worthless SS checks and fiat bills will be bundled together to function as SHTF substitute Depends and Pampers.

Just think... your young'ens and oldsters may be wearing Presidential and other Founding Father portrait Underoos!

Oh regional Indian's picture

Haaahaaaaaaah.....venture boy puts lipstick on the balkanization pig!!!!

Everyone claps:-)

It's the meme that matters anymore. Only.

That is a big key everyone seems to be missing....


Liberal's picture

As a liberal and a staunch defender of big government that pays (me), I am against anything that prevents me from retiring by the time I'm 46-years-old and still collect 95% of my highest annual salary. Plus benefits.

That I can never get fired no matter what I do is not enough. I should be demanding tax increases on all private citizens to protect my pension but I'm not. Instead, I'll just generously settle for a 20% raise. Every year. Plus benefits. For me and all of my relatives from Mexico. It's only fair.

Richard Chesler's picture

-> debt serfs of a corrupt federal government

-> debt serfs of a corrupt local government

chumbawamba's picture

The technical way in which any sort of break up of California will be thwarted, at least as far as the federal government is concerned, is that the Congress will not approve acts to accept the new states into the Union.  Without that acceptance, they will not be recognized by the federal government and will be considered rebels, enemies of the State.  If the will of the people is strong enough then they will simply break away, but yes, the political owners aren't going to let go of their prize without a fight.

I am Chumbawamba.

DoChenRollingBearing's picture

I do not have the legal details, but my understanding is that the state of Texas (under the treaty with the US upon joining) has the right to break itself into as many as five states.


Liberals shudder...

Farqued Up's picture

Treaty is correct but isn't worth toilet paper, just like our beloved Constitution.

MsCreant's picture

I marked this down because I don't like it. That does not mean it is not ture. I just don't like it.

espirit's picture

To buy in to the "Six State" option, each has to ante up their portion of underfunded CalPers.

No moarFed trough bailouts.


FEDbuster's picture

I really like the "Republic of Jefferson" idea.  Maybe a real Galt's Gulch?  I would apply for citizenship in a heart beat, pretty country up there, too.  Is one truely free state for freedom loving people asking too much?

Four chan's picture

who gets the mexicans and central americans?

James-Morrison's picture

Chop it up.

Who gives a shit about California?




James-Morrison's picture

OK, downvoter.

I'm waiting for a rebuttal.

(Besides, a trigger-finger)

TheReplacement's picture

The Constitution is only worth the blood, sweat, steel, and lead with which it is enforced.

CrazyCooter's picture

I recall this from Texas history class when I was elementary school, but I have not been able to easily substantiate it after spending a bit of time looking (back when Perry was shooting off his mouth).

Any ZHers got solid sources (no offense, just don't want any references - this should be pretty easily sourced if factual).



J S Bach's picture

A few name suggestions to fit the wonderfully diverse changes...

South California - Newer Mexico

West California - Newest Mexico

Silicon Valley - Queersland

Central California - Droughtsberg

chumbawamba's picture

I also did a cursory check one time and couldn't find anything.

So, trying again:

Interesting.  Texas, having been an independent republic already, was annexed, as opposed to being a new state carved out of a territory.  Here's the congressional annexation resolution, but the right of Texas to secede isn't in here (though one might expect it to be):

And it's not in here, the resolution accepting Texas into the Union:

Here's a nice little fact bonanza on Texas.  I guess the reason we could never find the authorization for Texas to secede from the Union is because there is none, as is eventually revealed if you watch through to the end of the video here:

So there you go.  You're welcome.  Sorry, Texas.


rccalhoun's picture


6 states  =  12 senators


we are fucked

TeamDepends's picture

If we are going to do this, the hobosexuals will need their own enclave. So make it seven.

MsCreant's picture

You have a cold. Oh dear. Hope that clears up soon.

MsCreant's picture

Hi John! Why the long face?

I apologize, cheap shot. You are a pretty horse, of course.

Theosebes Goodfellow's picture

~"6 states  =  12 senators"~

Not really. Actually, it would help conservatives. Here's how:

Currently the state of California has two senators, both of whom are liberals and democrats. With the state the way it is, very little seems to be going to change that because the large democrat-voting populaces of Sacramento, the Bay Area and the LA metroplex.

The split would create 3 liberal/democrat states and three, (South California, Central California and Jefferson) conservative ones. So the Senate would gain 4 democrat senators and 6 republican ones, (to the existing 2 existing democrats).

But as someone pointed out above, the odds of this are not good. The current liberal power structure in the state will be very much against this. They aren't about to let conservatives escape their little rathole prison. Colorado has a better chance than we Californians do.

Dull Care's picture

Jefferson would be Ron Paul land x 2000. South California would get a lot of the right wing Californians who have left the state. Central would be very conservative. West, North and  Silicon Valley would be left wing strongholds. At worst it would be 7-5 in favor of Democrats.

El Vaquero's picture

I don't like government, but I think that government is inevitable once there are enough people in a region.  There are too many sheeple who want to be led, and more than enough wolves exist.  Once things got settled down, I would do fine without a government, and would probably be happy.  But since I don't see that as being any sort of permanent state of being, I'd pick a flaccid government, with the full understanding that within 100 or 200 or 300 years, it would become a corrupt juggernaut in need of some guillotines.


I think the key to liberty is to ensure that no one person or entity has a monopoly on the use of force.  Wolves need to be shot from time to time when they get too brave.

MsCreant's picture

Wolves and government need to fear the people...

Oh wait...

El Vaquero's picture

Wolves and government are often the same. 


Shit, that was your point.  Carry on.  And if you want to keep the pelt for maximum resale value, might I suggest a .204 Ruger?

CrazyCooter's picture

How typical of the liberal troll ... late to the thread.

Coffee break at work much?



DoChenRollingBearing's picture

I think our friend Liberal is actually on our side, just doesn't want to /s...

CrazyCooter's picture

Oh, I figured as much, just contributing to the chum in the water so to speak. :-)



MsCreant's picture

I like the effort, but he needs to get deeper into the Liberal role. There is always a wink at cha' in the post. MDB is pretty dry in his delivery, no wink that says "I'm playing." 

MDB = Academy Troll Nominee

DerAdler's picture

Dear Liberal, you are a true patriot. I wish that most people were like you because ... oh, wait ...

teslaberry's picture

ORI it's dumbfounding how people don't see this. 


the independence movements of milan and venice pass for the same bag of shit, when you see the empire capital of luxembourg and brussels approve this---it's because the EU , like DC supports regional balkanization if it helps them maintain control. 

texas and california could help maintain the status quo by balkanizing. while we're at it, why not just balkanize every state into a jerry mandered district of one congressman and we can have the senate filled with the top wealthiest 100  board members of the fortune 500. 






Bendromeda Strain's picture

jerry mandered? What does Leave it To Beaver have to do with it?

CrazyCooter's picture

Everyone whose retirement and other assets depends on "paper" will feel this in the end. Insurance companies, pensions, you name it. Given the staggering numbers, it will be pretty much everyone.

At the same time, everyone wants a flushing shitter, a shit to flush, and a hot cot to sleep in all of which requires a job of some sort doing something useful for somebody, somewhere.

We are in the "in between" phase where a global government hasn't quite taken hold with a new unit of account (buh-bye old liabilities) and too many people still believe in the old system of account.

All that will change and anyone that thinks they know the outcome is selling something they do not posses.



Carl Spackler's picture

a process known as federal gerrymandering

Ignatius's picture

In the future when Americans say "Balkanization", they will be thinking of California.

Natural outgrowth of our overreaching and tyrannical central government empire.

StychoKiller's picture

Which of the six will be "Pornlandia?"

Big Corked Boots's picture

I'm looking for Mexifornia, myself.

The Reich's picture



Fixed it for you.